De-Escalate Culture War Conversations Using Moral Foundations Theory
The Growing Divide in Cultural Debates
In today’s polarized world, debates over social and political issues—often called “culture wars”—can quickly escalate into hostility and division. Whether it’s discussions on LGBTQ+ rights, racial justice, or religious freedom, people often talk past each other, unable to find common ground. Why does this happen? Because people operate from different moral foundations. Understanding this can help us engage in more productive conversations and de-escalate conflicts rather than fuel them.
Moral Foundations Theory: A Key to Understanding Differences
Developed by social psychologist Jonathan Haidt, Moral Foundations Theory (MFT) explains that people’s moral instincts are rooted in six fundamental values, which you can download as a PDF for reference:
Care/Harm – Prioritizing compassion and protecting the vulnerable.
Fairness/Cheating – Valuing justice and equal treatment.
Loyalty/Betrayal – Supporting one’s group, community, or nation.
Authority/Subversion – Respecting tradition, hierarchy, and leadership.
Sanctity/Degradation – Holding certain things sacred and avoiding moral or physical contamination.
Liberty/Oppression – Resisting tyranny and valuing personal freedom.
Liberal-leaning folks tend to emphasize Care and Fairness, while folks who lean more conservative tend to value all six foundations more evenly, especially Loyalty, Authority, and Sanctity. This difference in moral priorities often leads to misunderstandings and conflict.
Why Culture War Conflicts Escalate
When people argue about controversial topics, they often assume their opponent shares the same moral foundation—when, in reality, they don’t. Instead of listening, they project their personal values onto others, creating moral miscommunication.
One example we see almost daily in today’s world: LGBTQ+ rights, gender identify, gender affirmative care, pronouns, etc. The list sometimes feels endless.
Applying MFT, we learn that someone who favors more conservative ideals or policies may see it through the lens of Sanctity - preserving traditional moral values, perhaps emphasizing conservative religious teachings.
Some devoted religious people likely have a foundation in Sanctity that is more aligned with Care and Justice.
Someone who favors more liberal policies or ideals will often frame LGBTQ+ rights around Care - the protection of marginalized people. Children, as a whole, are not the “marginalized people.” The children, and others, who see themselves as members of the LGBTQ people are marginalized and need protection.
Sanctity, using the MFT framework, often reveals itself as protecting purity – especially the purity of children and women or girls. This lever of Sanctity (or Purity) using the MFT framework, which is based on data, is generally not strong in the moral foundations of the folks who lean liberal. Yet that does not mean they are immoral.
The drive to protect others comes from different moral foundations, but both sides seek to protect people. This particular issue can be incredibly confusing because BOTH parties may care about people, especially children, but the levers prompting reactions are different.
As the conflict escalates, emotions become stronger, opinions become entrenched, and our brains shift from having logical, cognitively-driven conversations to emotional, flight vs. fight standoffs. If neither side acknowledges the other’s moral concerns, the conversation escalates into a moral standoff, making compromise seem impossible.
A Framework to De-Escalate Culture War Conflicts
To have more productive discussions, we need to speak to people’s moral foundations, rather than dismiss them. Here’s how:
Recognize Different Moral Priorities. Instead of assuming bad intent, recognize that people are guided by different, but deeply held, moral instincts. Understanding this can make us more empathetic and less reactive.
Reframe Arguments Using Shared Values. Rather than arguing from our personal moral foundations, we should connect with others using values they prioritize. For example, if a person with strong conservative beliefs is concerned about LGBTQ+ issues because of Sanctity, someone with progressive beliefs could highlight how same-sex couples value lifelong commitment and family, which aligns with conservative ideals of Loyalty and Stability. Similarly, a conservative arguing against abortion from a Sanctity perspective could better connect with liberals by framing their position around Fairness (e.g., fairness to the unborn child).
Avoid Moral Condemnation and Binary Thinking. Instead of labeling the other side as “evil” or “ignorant,” acknowledge why they feel strongly about an issue. People shut down when they feel attacked, but they listen when they feel understood.
Focus on Common Goals. Despite their differences, progressives, conservatives and especially folks in the middle often share the same ultimate goals—they just approach them differently. Case in point: People all over the political map want strong families—they just define them differently. Both want justice—but one emphasizes equality, while the other emphasizes proportional fairness. By highlighting shared objectives, we can reduce hostility and foster cooperation.
Encourage Conversations, Not Debates. The goal of a discussion shouldn’t be to “win” but to understand. Asking genuine questions—rather than making accusations—can open the door to real dialogue. For example, instead of saying, “Why are you against LGBTQ+ rights?”, one could ask, “What values make you feel strongly about this issue?” or “You clearly care deeply about this. Tell me why this is so important to you.” This shift encourages people to explain their perspective, rather than defend themselves.
Words matter, so be intentional when you use them. The word “patriot” and even the American flag itself have become so entrenched in conservative messaging that many progressives feel they aren’t “allowed” to be a patriot - or they have a negative, visceral reaction to what that image and term mean now. When someone uses the word “satan,” as in “Church of,” to make a point about the separation of church and state, it is provocative and can be effective to prove a point. Some people, like folks who grew up in the Catholic Church like me, have an involuntary, sometimes even physical reaction due to deeply embedded messages and experiences in childhood. Whether they are still believers who attend church isn’t always relevant. Often people aren’t even aware of the visceral reaction that’s happening. Another example is the word “justice,” which has successfully been branded as a leftist term that needs to be fought by conservatives.
Accept this won’t work with everyone. Some people sincerely don’t care about anyone else who has values or beliefs that contradict their own. Set the boundaries that are healthy for you.
The caveat: Yes, some people are so entrenched in “winning” the moral battle that you need to set boundaries and know when to walk away. This is one tool for your toolbox. Not the only tool.
Final Thoughts: Building Bridges Instead of Walls
Culture war conflicts aren’t going away—but how we approach them can change. We can use Moral Foundations Theory as one tool in our toolbox to move from hostility to understanding, division to dialogue, and conflict to compromise. Instead of fueling the flames of culture wars, we can work toward a society where people—despite their differences—can engage in conversations that lead to real progress.
Want to learn more? Comment below to let us know what resonated with you. Contact the guest author at info@wilsonfoxen.com.
